Excuse my bluntness, but Fermi's Paradox is a load of horseshit. The question Fermi asked is: If the Galaxy is 'teeming' with intelligent life, then where are signs of likely visitation? He concluded there was no evidence of visitation, and therefore the Galaxy was not teeming with intelligent space-faring life.

Ignore any kookiness and fakery surrounding the issue and considerwhat pilots, well sourced film and photos, plus radar, and multiple trained observers have seen. Importantly, from BBSR14, we know that the better the quality of the sighting the more likely the unknown could not be explained in conventional terms:

However, according to analysis published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of data provided by the Kepler Space Telescope, there are likely more than 2000 habitable worlds within 60 light years of Earth. A number of these may be inhabited, or colonised, by technologically advanced life forms. If these advanced forms are using technology, then they would more-than-likely value knowledge and scientific learning. Therefore, why would such civilisations, advanced beyond our level, want to 'announce themselves' to the world, when they can study us at arms length?

As scientists, we would not want to interfere with another civilisation, merely to satisfy our own egos, especially if we were far in advance of the others. There would be nothing we would want from a lesser civilisation except for knowledge, like one studies animals in their natural environment. There is no good reason for a technically advanced alien civilisation to announce themselves to the general human population of the Earth.

Nevertheless, we should understand that despite a strong desire to remain hidden there is clear scientific evidence that we are under some kind of observation. On Earth we have developed drone and space probe technology - so wouldn't visitors to our planet employ similar strategies? Sometimes drones have accidents, or they are seen when the operator wants to keep the device hidden. I would not expect every alien group, if there is more than one, to be so advanced that there would be zero evidence of their visitation.

But again, regardless of any hypothesis, there IS hard data indicating unusual objects seen in our skies over a very long period of time - that is particularly well documented in the modern era - stuff that does not correlate with balloons, aircraft, meteors etc. From this material evidence we know that Fermi's Paradox is horseshit.

ps. The professional 'skeptics' and 'debunkers' on this issue are professional liars. They lie or grossly misrepresent almost everything significant. I know due to direct experience. Years ago, in a long running email argument, I ended up directly quoting a number of positive official assessments (from the Condon Report), in the face of a leading skeptic's claim saying the opposite was true. We had both read the report. As I told the debate opponent, either you are delusional (after I deconstructed the paragraphs in question), or you are a liar.

Here is the full conclusion from Case 46 of the report, which was one discussed in the 'conversation':

"This is one of the few UFO reports in which all factors investigated, geometric, psychological, and physical appear to be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disk-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses. It cannot be said that the evidence positively rules out a fabrication, although there are some physical factors such as the accuracy of certain photometric measures of the original negatives which argue against a fabrication."

The assessment here is clearly positive, as it was in a significant number of other cases throughout the report. The scientists studying these reports, particularly those supported by physical data, such as film, photos, and radar, all recommended further investigation of the phenomena in their concluding sections.

The professional 'skeptics' obfuscate this truth and point to the fraudulent overall report conclusion that wrongly says that nothing of scientific interest was uncovered - which is what the media and public was told at the time of its publication. The 'skeptics' use the overall negative summary to tar the positive assessments contained within the body of the report, the reverse of true scientific methodology (where conclusions are drawn from the data).

pps. If you only take a superficial look into this topic you will probably be fooled into thinking there is nothing here of interest.